[dhfhduk]

I agree with you, although also agree with another poster that net neutrality is still important, mostly because of interoperability reasons.

However, you're also bringing up an issue that seems really neglected in public discussion, which is the role of municipal infrastructure and policy.

To me there's three things:

1. The importance of net neutrality to the working of the internet, at a theoretical level.

2. The lack of competition.

3. The obligation of companies to the public because of advantages they've been granted.

These discussions always proceed like big ISPs own the land that cables are going over, etc. when that's anything but the case. There's things like the telephones you mention, plus right-of-way laws.

Why the EFF doesn't publish a huge map showing land used by ISPs that's not owned by them I don't understand.

It outrages me to see these ISPs being given right of way, and then having them turn around and act like they don't owe anything to the public, when in fact they wouldn't exist without the public bending over backward to give them all sorts of privileges. They're acting like parasites.

To me I might take arguments against net neutrality more seriously if those arguing against net neutrality would:

1. Lobby for the rights of municipalities and other institutions to set up their own ISPs and networks. No laws against public ISPs.

2. Lobby for ISPs to be held responsible for any and all criminally or civilly infringing content going over their networks. Want to preferentially treat packets? Then you should scan for child porn too. If not, you're implicitly supporting it.

3. Lobby for the elimination of right-of-way. Let municipalities, state and federal governments, and private landholders charge ISPs whatever they want for access over their land.

Of course, ISPs would scream bloody murder and argue such things are ridiculous, but I would argue that they're not at all unreasonable given what the government is asking for in terms of net neutrality. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

[rayiner]

> Why the EFF doesn't publish a huge map showing land used by ISPs that's not owned by them I don't understand.

Likely because it wouldn't show anything interesting. State and local governments may only "manage the public rights-of-way or to require fair and reasonable compensation from telecommunications providers, on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis, for use of public rights-of-way on a nondiscriminatory basis, if the compensation required is publicly disclosed by such government." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/253. In practice, rights of way are poles and conduits, which are rented to all companies at published, non-discriminatory rates: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/224. The idea that companies are sitting on all these free rights of way they don't own is largely false.

[evilDagmar]

Except that, as what happened in Nashville showed, the incumbents will take up all the available space on those poles, requiring any newcomers to wait for them to move their wires up or down a bit in order to make them ready for the newcomers to hang their wires. When these moves happen is apparently left entirely up to the incumbents discretion, as 18 months into Google Fiber attempting to deploy here about 33 poles had been touched. That's a brisk pace of two each month. So, with AT&T and Comcast left to themselves, some of Nashville will actually be ready for a new player at about the same time as we're ready to formally declare 32-bit time() functions unsafe to use.

[rayiner]

Some sort of make-ready work is unavoidable when you have shared poles. But it's not left up to the incumbents' discretion. Under current rules, existing attachers have 60 days (105 days for orders involving large numbers of poles) to move their lines. The FCC is currently considering shortening those periods, or adopting a "one-touch make ready" process that would permit the new attacher to move other companies' lines.

I don't know what's causing the hold up in Nashville. The lawsuits don't stop Google from deploying, only from relying on the city's "one-touch make ready" ordinance which would allow bypassing the FCC process. But Google deployed in Kansas City, etc. without the expedited process, so that doesn't explain the delay. And Google Fiber's deployment in newer Fiber cities like Atlanta has been slow even though they face no litigation there. I suspect it all has to do with the fact that Google Fiber only has like 1,500 employees and recently cut 10% of its workforce.